<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2017 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => 'Learning Journal',
	'<{subtitle}>' => 'HIST 1421: Greek and Roman Civilization',
	'<{copyright year}>' => '2017',
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<section id="Unit1">
	<h2>Unit 1</h2>
	<p>
		Greek democracy was never really much of a democracy at all.
		Athens subjugated other Greek city-states, and the vast majority of people had no say in government, and many of them had no rights at all.
	</p>
	<p>
		During the Peloponnesian Wars, all of Greece was at war with one another, and Athens seemed to be doing pretty well due to their large reserves of silver, mostly obtained as tributes from subjugated city-states.
		A plague hit Athens, killing off much of their population, including key people such as Pericles.
		Thucydides lost a battle to Sparta, and was exiled from Athens for it.
		After thirty long hears of war, Athens was defeated and left devastated.
		Thucydides blamed the fall of Athens on arrogance and democracy.
		However, as Athens wasn&apos;t truly a democracy, true democracy couldn&apos;t have been to blame; arrogance was very likely a key cause of their defeat though.
		&quot;Democracy&quot; was repeatedly restored to Athens, but was also repeatedly struck down.
		Eventually, democracy won out, but it wasn&apos;t without hard feelings.
	</p>
	<p>
		Alexander the Great later came and struck down &quot;democracy&quot; more effectively.
		For the next two millennia, Athens, along with the rest of Greece, was a dictatorship.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="Unit2">
	<h2>Unit 2</h2>
	<p>
		There&apos;s no good choice between ancient Athens and ancient Sparta.
		Both held advantages over one another, but they pale in comparison to many of the countries of modern society.
		If I had to choose though, I&apos;d probably choose ancient Athens as my place to live.
	</p>
	<p>
		Both city-states were highly racist and highly sexist.
		In all likelihood, I&apos;d have no right to vote at either of them, as the vast majority of people were outsiders.
		In Sparta though, the probability of being a slave would be higher than in Athens.
		Additionally, having rights in Sparta, assuming my genetics (both sex and lineage) even allowed it, would require being a warrior.
		In all likelihood, I&apos;d have no say in Athenian government, but at least I could probably choose to live a peaceful life.
	</p>
	<p>
		Athens also had a system in place to prevent politicians from committing the worst abuses of their power.
		If politicians acted unfavourably enough to become hated by the people, they could be ostracised, or exiled for ten years.
		Even if I was a part of the majority that was unable to vote, this would somewhat protect me.
		Of course, voting citizens might not ostracise a politician that makes decisions that are bad for those of use that couldn&apos;t vote, but bad actions that affect everyone wouldn&apos;t be easy to get away with.
		It wouldn&apos;t be ideal by any means, but it would be far better than the alternative of Sparta.
		Athens was also known to have been a haven for the arts.
	</p>
	<p>
		Even the location of Sparta had great military advantage, and in all honesty, the location to build the city was likely chosen for this very reason.
		This shows how battle-oriented the city-state was.
		Additionally, Sparta repressed the majority of their citizens, known as the Helots.
		These people were slaves to the city, and because of how mistreated they were, Sparta constantly feared an uprising.
		As Helots were the majority, if I were to live in ancient Sparta, I&apos;d most likely be one of these Helots.
		Why would I want to be a slave?
		Athens would clearly be the better place to live.
		Even if I had the luck to be a rights-holding male citizen of Sparta, I&apos;d lose my rights if I failed to join and retain membership in a syssitia.
		I&apos;d be required to eat with the group and required to hunt for the group.
		I don&apos;t like death, and I don&apos;t like eating corpses, human or not.
		I&apos;m a vegan, yet if I practiced that, I&apos;d be ejected from my syssitia (assuming I even managed to get into one) and I&apos;d lose my rights.
		Then there&apos;s the military service.
		All males that weren&apos;t killed at birth were raised as soldiers.
		Combat really isn&apos;t my thing.
		If I don&apos;t even want to harm non-humans, why would I be fine harming others of my own kind?
		Speaking of which, being on constant watch of the Helots because we mistreat them and don&apos;t want them to rise up because of it would be a constant source of stress.
		Of course, I could end up as a female citizen of Sparta.
		But is that any better?
		The women were raised to be baby factories.
		Obviously, that&apos;s hard on one&apos;s body.
		Childbirth isn&apos;t something I ever want to go through.
		And leading up to childbirth, there&apos;s the feeling of something foreign moving around inside you.
		The thought of that seems very unpleasant to me.
		But in addition to that ... there&apos;s the fact of where babies come from.
		I&apos;m what&apos;s known as a sex-repulsed asexual.
		What this means is that while I don&apos;t care if others have sex, the thought of having sex myself is something more than I can stomach.
		Yet as a living baby factory, I&apos;d be required to have sex on many occasions throughout my life.
		Especially near the end of Spartan history, peanalties were imposed upon citizens for not marrying, and ostensibly for not breeding.
	</p>
	<p>
		Life in Athens wouldn&apos;t be the best.
		In all honesty, my main reason for choosing to live in Athens is that at least Athens isn&apos;t Sparta.
		But that&apos;s just the thing: at least Athens isn&apos;t Sparta.
		I could live free of combat, free of sex, and free of flesh-eating my entire life.
		I would be free to be me.
		One benefit for being a woman in Sparta, as opposed to being a woman elsewhere, was that Spartan women were actually allowed to own land.
		This is a very good thing.
		Still, this isn&apos;t enough for me to want to live there instead of in Athens.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="Unit3">
	<h2>Unit 3</h2>
	<p>
		One of the major causes of the downfall of Athens was their having severed ties with Sparta.
		In the Peloponnesian War, Sparta and Sparta&apos;s allies were the enemies of Athens.
		Had Athens not severed ties with Sparta over having been merely insulted, Sparta would&apos;ve still been an ally to Athens and would&apos;ve been less likely to have attacked Athens.
	</p>
	<p>
		With ties severed, the two city-states competed for power.
		While still allies, both cities had tried to grow their own power, but because they were allies, it wasn&apos;t threatening to the other to do so.
		Now, Athens had reason to fear Sparta and Sparta&apos;s allies, and a fragile balance of power formed.
	</p>
	<p>
		In an attempt to prevent the balance of power from tipping in the unfavourable direction, Athens put an embargo on Megara because Megara had been helping an ally of Sparta, Corinth.
		While not technically a declaration of war, this move by Athens was clearly hostile, and was perceived as such by Corinth.
		Corinth convinced their allies (Sparta and the other allies of Sparta) to invade Athens and begin the Peloponnesian War.
	</p>
	<p>
		Had Athens still been an ally to Sparta, Sparta&apos;s power growth wouldn&apos;t have been perceived as a threat.
		No fragile balance of power between the two cities would&apos;ve been formed, and the growth of either city would&apos;ve been beneficial to both cities.
		There&apos;d&apos;ve been no need to keep Megara from helping another still-ally, Corinth, so there&apos;d&apos;ve been no need for an embargo.
		With no embargo in place and with Athens, Sparta, and Corinth all being allies, there&apos;d be no invasion and war wouldn&apos;t&apos;ve broken out.
		Without a war, Athens wouldn&apos;t&apos;ve fallen and their golden age would continue.
		The cause of all of this seems to be traceable back to Athens&apos; pride and inability to accept Sparta&apos;s rude refusal to accept help from Athens.
	</p>
	<p>
		There are plenty of reasons to cut ties with a military powerhouse such as Sparta.
		For example, Sparta was a dictatorship and their citizens weren&apos;t allowed to be free.
		They subjugated their masses, the Helots, making them slaves.
		Even their non-Helots weren&apos;t really free.
		Males were required to live as soldiers and females were required to be baby factories.
		However, &quot;Sparta was rude to us&quot; is a ridiculous reason to cut ties with them!
		Giving up a power ally for a petty reason could only lead to needless problems.
		In this case, it cost Athens everything.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="Unit4">
	<h2>Unit 4</h2>
	<p>
		The Plebeians were important to Rome mostly because of their sheer quantity.
		The Patricians liked to think themselves better than the Plebeians, but the simple fact is that the Patricians didn&apos;t have the means to defend their city on their own.
		They needed the Plebeians as soldiers to defend the city in times of war.
		This applies in reverse though too.
		It&apos;s true that the Plebeians were needed as soldiers because of their numbers.
		However, their numbers could also be used against the Patricians.
		When mistreated, Plebeian revolts had a huge impact on Rome.
	</p>
	<p>
		As the Plebeians asserted their rights, they began to take on political power as well.
		As the largest class of citizens, equal rights would have made them more powerful than the smaller Patrician class.
		The Patricians feared the growing power of the Plebeians so much that attempts at fairness or generosity toward them were viewed as threatening by the Patricians.
		Spurius Cassius attempted to allow Plebeians fair and equal access to publicly-owned land.
		Spurius Maelius fed the Plebeians on Maelius&apos; own dollar during a time of famine.
		Marcus Manlius lent in-debt Plebeians interest-free money to pay off their other debts and tried to get people to see how stacked against the Plebeians the government was.
		These people were all accused of attempting to become king and were executed.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="Unit5">
	<h2>Unit 5</h2>
	<p>
		Instead of consuls, Carthage had two chief magistrates.
		While the Romans had their senate, Carthage instead had the hundred, a council of elders.
		They also had an assembly like the Romans.
		However, while Rome had slowly transitioned into a state in which many people had a hand in governmental affairs, Carthage had not.
		Carthage was still an aristocracy, and lands conquered by Carthage were never fully integrated with the state.
		These lands held subjects only, not voting citizens.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="Unit6">
	<h2>Unit 6</h2>
	<p>
		It&apos;s said that Rome&apos;s conquests changed Rome&apos;s view on power.
		Originally, Rome didn&apos;t plan to rule the world.
		They just needed to defend themselves.
		In doing so though, they needed to subdue more and more enemies, each time taking control of them.
		As this went on, Rome came to lust for power itself.
		Rome began to oppress their conquered subject.
		Their greed increased substantially at the cost of their honour.
		These conquest also resulted in large quantities of people being subjects to Rome but without any actual rights, or in some cases very few rights, to actually participate in government.
		Yet even without rights, these people were <del>expected</del> <ins>required</ins> to add to Rome&apos;s wealth.
		In some cities (the Italian ones), the people were required to provide soldiers for war.
		In others (the cities of provinces), the people had to pay tribute to Rome.
	</p>
	<p>
		Speaking of not having proper rights, the state built up by Rome&apos;s conquests was itself negative in many ways.
		Even those calling themselves full Roman citizens didn&apos;t actually have much say in their own government.
		The government offices, both the curule offices and the senate, came to be controlled by the noble families.
		The power of the popular assemblies withered and shrank as well.
		Rome was in theory a republic, but in practice, it began to take on characteristics of an aristocracy once more.
		The provincial governors were once elected, but those positions came to be given to former praetors and consuls.
		As the curule offices (including those of the praetors and consuls) were controlled by the wealthy aristocratic class, the optimates, these aristocrats also had the power to run the provinces.
		Within the provinces, the governors had to answer to the senate, but the senators were their fellow aristocrats.
		The governors mostly had free reign to do as they pleased with thier provinces and had full control over taxation and administration of the law.
		Taxes weren&apos;t collected directly by the governor though, and Rome allowed the publicani (money dealers) collect the taxes on their behalf.
		The publicani could collect whatever taxes they wanted to, as long as they paid Rome the amount they had asked for and were expecting.
		Any extra collected went into the pockets of the publicani themselves, so they often charged the people much higher taxes than they actually owed.
		The governors could&apos;ve put a stop to this, but quite frankly, they didn&apos;t care.
		They were more concerned with boosting their own level of wealth than justly ruling and protecting their subjects.
		The state built up by these conquests was an uneven and unfair place to live.
		The masses were poor, with all the wealth held by the upper class.
		Part of the masses survived through bribes given by those that sought office wile others worked farms they didn&apos;t own, as the unjust laws had stripped them of their land.
		(It&apos;s worth noting that not all poor farmers had lost their land, though many of them had.)
		Farms had been gathered up into large estates.
		Most of these estates weren&apos;t even cared for by the poor farmers, but by unpaid slaves, again, keeping the money (and livlihood) in the hands of the wealthy.
		Those living in provinces had even fewer rights than actual Roman citizens, and the subdued &quot;allies&quot; had fewer still.
		Beneath the &quot;allies&quot;, there were slaves, people who had no rights whatsoever, most of which were treated like scum.
		Before all the conquesting, Rome had been a state of inclusion.
		For a time, much of the population (though still not the women) had a say in how the government was run.
		As we see it now though, Rome was left as a state of <strong>*exclusion*</strong>, with the aristocrats ruling over the citizens.
		These aristocrats cared little for the good of the commoners, as is common for those in positions of high (and especially perpetual) power.
	</p>
	<p>
		Voting, even by those that were allowed, wasn&apos;t feasible.
		Voting could only be conducted in Rome proper, not any of the outlying areas, so for most, this involved a long commute.
		Once in Rome, the voting populace was such a large group they couldn&apos;t actually get anything done.
		With the voting system in such a mess, imagine if everyone were allowed to vote and decided to exercises that right.
		Imagine all of Rome having to congregate in this one spot.
		The city would be flooded with people to the point most&apos;d be standing around outside the city walls.
		No communication would be possible whatsoever.
	</p>
	<p>
		All of this clearly shows Rome was in an unhealthy state after its conquests.
		Reform was badly needed, and though some tried to accomplish it, they paid with their lives.
		Without reform, Rome entered a period of civil strife and war.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="Unit7">
	<h2>Unit 7</h2>
	<p>
		Painting was used for decorating walls, particularly the walls inside homes.
		It was used to add interest to otherwise-boring surfaces.
		Paintings could be of many different types of subjects, and often incorporated mythology, but was always inherently for entertainment value only.
	</p>
	<p>
		Sculpture was used very differently though.
		Sculpture was used to depict things of importance.
		For example, figures used in warship would often be sculpted.
		Both deities and ancestors might be represented as religious sculptures.
		Stories of conquest were also sculpted as a physical representation of someone&apos;s victory and power.
		With sculptures, there had to be a <strong>*reason*</strong> to sculpt the subject.
	</p>
</section>
<section id="Unit8">
	<h2>Unit 8</h2>
	<p>
		The provinces were required to pay taxes to Rome, while also supporting their own needs.
		In this way, they fuelled the Roman economy by allowing the Roman government to spend more money than its citizens provided.
		They were also expected to send goods to Rome.
	</p>
	<p>
		In theory, this should have helped boost the Roman economy, as more money and goods were pouring in.
		However, Rome&apos;s economy had bigger problems than lack of money and goods.
		The major issue was a lack of paid <strong>*jobs*</strong>!
		Wealth existed, but it was in the hands of a few.
		The vast majority couldn&apos;t support themselves, as they had no way to attract any of that money to themselves.
		Jobs were being outsourced to slaves.
		Bringing in tributes and taxes from the provinces didn&apos;t help the situation.
		Instead, the production of these resources was further work that was being outsourced from Rome!
		Instead of slaves completing the work, people of the provinces completed it, but the effect was the same: Romans living in Rome had no work.
	</p>
	<p>
		Taxation in the provinces wasn&apos;t as efficient as it could be either.
		Wealthy individuals bid to be allowed to be tax collectors, then the tax collectors themselves took a large cut from the people.
		Again, this resulted in money flowing in the wrong direction.
		The already-wealthy became even more so, while the poor descended further into poverty.
		This didn&apos;t have a direct effect on the economy of Rome proper, but these provinces were part of Rome&apos;s territory, so Rome should&apos;ve been looking out for their economies as well.
	</p>
</section>
END
);
